my perennial message to the war mongers of hippyland

Funny how our views change isn't it. Happened in Iraq, and in Panama and many other places. But the most confusing item is we haven't captured him yet...why is that?

 

>>Oh come on where do you get the idea of ''ethnic cleansing'' on OUR part that is ridiculous.

Quote:
>>america will continue to attack more islamic states.

>>I can't buy into your notion America is attempting to do what you suggest - it is just ridiculous.

well history has alot to say about this. action speaks louder than words. bombing and invading an entire region at will and killing plenty of people seems like baby steps. did anyone really believe hitler would try and wipe out people he didn't like? if this was kosovo / yugoslavia/ rwanda this would be knowm as ethnic cleansing. personally i can't really understand why america has gone this way but the route has taken is clear. the yanks i have met in the past have always seemed very decent people but you can't judge a governmet by its people. from whats happened separating the two sides in iraq is a good idea, when two people are fighting isn't the most effective course of action to separate them otherwise they keep fighting? whatever the americans are up to they've created a couple of centuries of business.

 

He does not take any of my calls any more - so i do not rightly know why he disagrees with me. He obviously and quite rightly has his own opinion.

Many other districts already had or would have some form of barrier, said Brigadier General Qassim Atta, spokesman for the Iraqi forces engaged with US troops in enforcing the Baghdad security plan.

Atta said Iraqi units planning and building the walls are under Maliki's command, and implied the prime minister reacted to false reports, saying"He said he would not accept a 12 metre high security barrier."

Well more than likely the position of the US has not changed - OBL views and opinions have obviously changed. That is clear for all to see.

Imho i think he has not been captured because he is still hiding in regions of the Pakistani/Afghan border not under any real governance - nobody is willing [anymore] or able [anymore] to go look for him.
Possibly:
Brand 'al-Qaida ' is a global threat uninpinged by where he is or even if he is still alive. Why waste time finding a person who has reached the state of divinity and his capture will no longer solve anything other than to create a martyr. As much as every person would like to see him captured - i imagine the military and inteligence communinty reflect on that point [if i may be so bold as to assume that].

 

....

 

The sad truth is lots of innocent people were killed as a result of us 'invading' Iraq - even though the vast majority of Iraqis supported the Invasion and removal of Saddam.

Hitler did not do the majority of acts the coalition have http://www.mnf-iraq.com/ - I do not see vast concentration camps - in America - set up for muslims of America. Neither do i know of Hitler inviting those he wished to cleanse into his country -

Another aspect of our response to Iraqi refugee needs in the region is a planned expansion of our U.S. resettlement program. The U.S. has been resettling Iraqi refugees since the mid-1970s. To date the U.S. has resettled more than 37,000 Iraqis, the vast majority of whom were victims of Saddam Hussein's regime. Since April 2003 we have resettled 692 Iraqis in the United States. Following the 9/11 attacks, for security reasons, the United States instituted an enhanced security review of existing Iraqi resettlement cases that effectively halted their admission until this requirement was lifted in 2005. Since then, resettlement of Iraqi cases has resumed, but only small numbers of referrals had been received until recently. Now, we have acted aggressively to expand our ability to offer more Iraqis refuge in the United States during 2007. One element of this expansion has been to boost UNHCR's resettlement operations. In the last two years, we provided an additional $900,000 of funding targeted to support UNHCR resettlement operations in the region. These expanded operations have increased registration efforts, thereby allowing UNHCR to identify more vulnerable cases and boosting the number of referrals to our program and those of other resettlement countries.

http://www.state.gov/g/prm/rls/82184.htm

I do not believe it is to seperate two peoples - it is to stop a minority from inflicting violence on another - it i imagine will not be a barrier for those who wish to visit either side of the barriers - unlike say the Berlin wall.

 

the thing is that america should never have attacked iraq and never invaded it. fact is the raison d'etre for the war was deliberately falsified. the proof of the pudding is that weapons of mass destruction were never found. perhaps america could invade other countries in the pursuit of this mythical beast? when you put all the bombings, torture, carnage, physical locations together it all points to ethnic cleansing. the germans used to use jews to kill the jews


Kapos

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The German concentration camps depended on the cooperation of trustee inmates who supervised the prisoners. Known as Kapos, these trustees carried out the will of the Nazi camp commandants and guards, and were often as brutal as their SS counterparts. Some of these Kapos were Jewish, and even they inflicted harsh treatment on their fellow prisoners. For many, failure to perform their duties would have resulted in severe punishment and even death, but many historians view their actions as a form of complicity. After the war, the prosecution of Kapos as war criminals, particularly those who were Jewish, created an ethical dilemma which continues to this day.

Jewish police (Juedischer Ordnungsdienst), Jewish police units set up on German orders incertain locations within German-occupied areas. The Judenraete in EasternEurope were commanded to organize these police units, generally as a prerequisite to the establishment of ghettos in their areas. The duties of the Jewish police included collecting ransom payments,personal possessions, and taxes from their fellow Jews; gathering Jews forforced labor quotas; guarding the ghetto; and accompanying labor crews that worked outside the ghetto. Early on, the Jewish police also carried out publicwelfare duties, such as giving out food rations and aid to the poor and dealingwith sanitary conditions. The Germans set guidelines regarding the type of person to be recruited for the police: someone who was physically fit, and had both military experienceand an academic degree. However, these guidelines were not actuallyobserved. The Jewish police was officially part of the Judenrat, but manyJudenraete regarded the police suspiciously: they feared that the Germanswould have direct control over the police and make them carry out their dastardly policies. Indeed, the German authorities often made sure to appointJewish police heads who would follow their orders without question. Thus,many Jews in the ghettos considered the Jewish police to be a danger to the rest of the ghetto population. In addition, many youth Movements and Jewishpolitical parties forbid their members from joining the police forces. As time went on, the Jewish policemen were strongly affected by the massdeportations to extermination camps. Many decided to quit the force, ratherthan participate in the rounding up of their fellow Jews (most of these policemen were then themselves deported). Other policemen stayed in theirposts, following German orders to the very end. This type of behavior cameunder serious investigation by survivor groups after the war. In Munich, 40 Jewish policemen were found guilty of improper behavior and ostracized by the Jewish community; in Israel several policemen were charged, but mostwere acquitted, based on the terrible context in which they had to function during the war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
__________________________________________________________________________ Shoah Resource Center, The International School for Holocaust Studies2/2

what this article doesn't tell you is that in poland the germans eventually killed all the jewish police and their families once they had reached the end of their usefulness


so you see just by keeping a few people around doesn't mean that ethnic cleansing isn't being carried out. as it stands the barrier between the warring parties won't save them, the game plan is to wipe out the iraqis and all other islamic leaning states, the only reason the americans are so nice to the saudis is that they own alot of the oil, i can only hope they are so nice to them when they don't have any oil. then again it would just be easier for america to take saudi rather than bugger around with iraq? then again its all just baby steps.

 

wow, people are actually talking on this topic still...it be old. I saw something about the Holocaust and I would totally argue with all of you but they are way too long for me to read.

 

guy said ''if you think the war is justified and so necessary why won't you join the army and go to iraq to reinforce and justify your beliefs instead of letting someone else get killed or horribly maimed. thank god you think this war is righteous. why won't you go to it?''

If this question does not apply to you - then i think you can skip everything bar the last few pages - as i think guy and myself are on another tangent - please read - maybe you can determine who the craz....ok just kidding . Your input would be valued.

How it was ''sold'' in your country is one thing how it was ''sold'' in this country is another - The media and i dare say the goverment to a smaller degree played up WMD - no doubt that was on the lips of everybody at the time. To be honest i was not aware of the intricacies back then. I have done a LOT of reading and talked to a LOT of people in the last 3/4 years.
From how i view it NOW - no WMDs were found and goverments have aknowledged that - That does not mean the vast swathe of goverments did not believe that Saddam had them. He was clearly making the task of making himself fully accountable - a mammoth task. Burning documents hyping his capability to his own people and differing parts of his military etc etc etc.

''We are all agreed that Iraq must be fully disarmed of weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq's failure to co-operate immediately, unconditionally and actively with the Inspectors has to be dealt with. As we negotiated 1441 the evidence was there for all of us to see, that Iraq had been and remained in material breach and we all, fifteen members, voted to give the Iraqi regime a final opportunity to comply with its obligations. The first question therefore for this Council is, has Iraq taken this final opportunity to disarm? And I've been very struck, listening with care to all the speeches and of course people have different points of view. But nobody, not one Minister before this Council in my hearing, has said that Iraq is now fully, actively and immediately in compliance with 1441. They have not so far taken this final opportunity. If anybody in this chamber or outside has any doubt about that conclusion, I do commend to members this so called 'clusters' report, the outstanding issues, concerning Iraq's proscribed weapons programme, which as a member of the Commission behind UNMOVIC I've already had the privilege of reading. I have read, Dr Blix knows, all 167 pages of that report in every particular. It's a very painstaking piece of work. I thank Dr Blix for publishing it. But it's also a chilling read about the failure of Iraq to comply with successive resolutions of this Council over each day of the past 12 years. ''
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/FCO/uk-fco-straw-030703.htm

So are you suggesting that the coalition are keeping all the muslims in the goverment / military etc - alive - untill stability is achieved - then they plan on killing or imprisoning them ?. I've heard some crazy theories in my time - this tops the whole lot.

How about MILLIONS . How about keeping MILLIONS around ?.

What about those pesky muslims in AMERICA ?.

Rubbish - absolute rubbish.
How you can go from being quite articulate and smart to being a conspiritorial nutter - suprises me - every single day.

I appreciate the history lesson guy - that was enlightening. The problem with the comparison is there is no comparison.

 

its not my fault america wants to wipe out the islamic culture and states.

look rome had a problem with other religions too, in its time christianity was seen to be a problem too. even marcus aurelius the philosopher emperor had a heap of christians killed.

ok...

having a wander around the ruins of pergamon in turkey there is one dominating feature of this site - the trajaneum, a place of worship for the emperor trajan. to worship trajan or any roman dictator for that matter was mandatory, to accept him as a god and worship him meant you were compliant and loyal to rome and its present ruler. the occupied territories of rome had to accept emperor as a god.

the jews of jerusalem and surrounding territories came into conflict with the romans on this point. it was religous heresy that rome should ever be able to crush them because they were the chosen people, according to their book no one should be able to do this. of course reality and religion are often far from each other but this is another matter. caligula set up his statue in the jewish temple and from a roman viewpoint was this not valid as all territories under rome should be compliant? when the jews revolted at this, it was seen to be treasonous behaviour and dealt with accordingly. the jews were singled out for the fact that they would not accept emperor as god and thus were guilty.

the christians had the same problem being unable to accept emperor as god they too were dealt with in the same way.

the americans as the romans, are making their march into the history books of the middle east. islam as christianity and judaism is not acceptable to "american values" because islam will not worship at the temple of american values (you have to remember that the american army now has officially recognised covens within its ranks now - no not a mad conspiracy rather fact, people are allowed to worship whatever god/ values they like under the constitution as long as they swear obdedience to america) isalm at its most fundamental sees foreign troops in the heart of its territories as an insult to the religion as its practices run counter to mohammeds teachings. the islamic culture of the middle east is foreign to our known worlds of sleepy suburbia.

islam and its peoples are therefore enemies of american values as presented by the present dictator elect of american armed forces. islam is guilty because its values do not echo the compliance that rome/ america needs to hear and see. if you are not with us you are against us, worship at our temple to our god or be destroyed.

 

AHAHAHA! I am having such a good laugh. I haven't read the whole arguement, but from what I see you're trying to say (at least right now) that the US is trying to kill all muslim people and destroy their nations? :stupid: lol No offense but that is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard in my life. Your arguement really makes no sense, and even if it did I would not be convinced in a million years. You're off your gourd my friend! lol

 

strange

you can't be bothered to read my post yet you choose to critque in you own half arsed way.

not bothering to understand most things always leads to alot of confusion i can only assume you must be american?

 

Thats the point - i do not think they do.

You make the arguement of the insurgency and foreign jihadists very well - it is a shame it is not that accurate. There are a few million muslims in america and countless millions of other religous groups as well. All fairly happily getting on with their lives. Iraqis are not being asked to live by ''american values'' - that is just not true. Imho it is the fundementalist minority rocking the stability - promoting nationalistic ideals and religous hatred - every single day. The vast majority of Iraqis want to do what we take for granted - eat sleep buy sell and work in safety - if that is ''american values'' - so be it.

What is wrong with that ?.

The US Army doesn't require its service members to declare their religion. But estimates put the number of Muslims serving at about 10,000. Since 9/11, many Muslims have decided against enlisting because of concerns that a bias exists that could limit their career prospects...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0328/p01s02-usmi.html

That is the key word ''fundemental'' - yes i agree fundementalist islamists see the ''invasion'' - just how you interprete it. I know this and agree. The millions of people that do not have fundementalist ideologies are sick of us being there now - as much as they see the coalition as being required - true. They are also sick of the insurgency killing them - who happen to be pretty much fundementalist islamists at worst - fundemental nationalists at best.

To a certain degree i agree - it is a good thing that the perceptions of the middle eastern issues - are not extracted from ''sleepy suburbia''. As generalised a idea of how people percieve islam and the middle east - i imagine it is pretty alien to to many muslims of ''western'' birth as well. That is why goverments have advisors http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/khalilzad-bio.html

That is just not true- there are groups of muslims backing Bush and as indicated earlier thousands of muslims in the armed forces. The simplistic characture of ''what america thinks'' - is i imagine the way it is painted to many disilusioned Iraqi people and to a greater extent those fundemental/natiolistic Iraqis - skewing the reality for their own ends.

I remember ''if you are not with us you are against us'' i do not recognise the rest of that. I think he was talking about the fight against OBL - are you with OBL or against OBL ?. If the answer is ''against'' then it pretty much means you are on the side of that Bush is on - http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/

''The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.''
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html

 

even in roman times there would have been jews working and aiding the romans. take josephus for example a religious jew who eventually saw the futility of denying rome its glory ( he wrote "the jewish wars" under the patronage of vespasian himself ). jerusalem under seige, jewish zealots prowling the streets killing anyone they decided wasn't conforming to the religion. josephus was eventually smuggled out of the city in a funeral arrangement (the zealots weren't allowing people to flee the city, i think the russians did this in leningrad i think when fighting the germans).


you will have natives of invaded countries working for the invader. look at the dutch , they had their quislings. the ss as you would probably know had more members from other countries than germany, wherever the ss went it created franchises in occupied territory. remember the toppling of saddams statue? the people doing the toppling weren't from baghdad they were bussed in for the occasion (theres an al jazeera doco that briefly shows an editor making comment that the peoples accents don't match the neighbourhood, native speakers of the language pick up on accents, its rather like bringing in some scotsmen into parliament square and getting them to topple a statue and claim they are just ordinary joe average from london)

there is a collision between ideologies, the islamic on one side that says the middle east is islamic territory and will drive out the invader and the western that says worship our gods or be destroyed. the crusaders weren't kicked out of palestine because of one big battle, it was a war of attrition, eventually the crusaders just ran out of money packed up their bags and left. eventually the western powers after pouring billions of dollars into a black hole will come the conclusion that it was a waste of time. after time people in western countries will object to the waste of resources being spent on this exercise. vietnam is a classic case of "modern times".

the war apologist will object to any reasoned analysis of the present, they know only what they have been taught by the meagre education they received at the hands of the state and the fickle pages of the newspaper. thats why i encourage the war apologist to go to iraq there would be no finer education to understand reality.

 

There are and always have been many that will work against their personal ideology to make a buck or advance in society. It transcends all religions and ideologies. It speaks to greed.

Perhaps greed is the most valid religion out there.

 

I do not resent or regret the end of the Vietnam war. No one should. It like this current conflict and the crusades was based on something that meant nothing to the working man that was sending their children to die. Can anyone even today tell me why the US sacrificed so many young lives? What was the Vietnam war about?

I realize today's war is about oil and the control of it. It will not end until the PSAs are signed. I have never understood what Vietnam was about. And now we are trade partners....go figure. What did big business stand to gain by such loss of live. Perhaps they've gained it now. A low cost labor force, and cheap goods. But Vietnam lost so much as did the US and French for what cheap goods? Communism....now that's rich! But we did rise up to fight the red menace.

Now our young are motivated by fighting the Islamic radicals...Islam is so close to Jewish and Christian foundations why should they be our enemies? They believe in one god and many of our prophets...how did they become the enemy?

 

I read your post before I commented. I just didn't read the whole arguement that has been going on for the last 2 pages. I read your posts and the other dudes posts on the last page. Also, you really are off your gourd.

 

rigghhht... off my gourd? this is some powerful stuff you smoke

A gourd is a hollow, dried shell of a fruit in the Cucurbitaceae family of plants. Gourds can be used as a number of things, including bowls or bottles. Gourds are also used as resonating chambers on certain musical instruments including some stringed instruments and drums. Instruments of this type are common in Africa, South Asia, and the Caribbean. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gourd

start writing some opinions down on this evolving thread

 

Thanks for even more e.gs . Your point seems to me to be that you think the Iraqi goverment and all those that are working for it and the coalition - along with any person who happens to be directly or indirectly - is ''working with the enemy''. I do hope i have that correct. If that is your POV - Well then i can see why you make the comparisons - you could even go so far as to say that like the Romans - ''we'' oh sorry the US is allowing Iraqi to look after its own affairs - the US allows Iraqis to worship their own gods [well you might have to revise your logic for that one]. To me that just allows you to have a wild theory not based on actuality.

I knew that the crowds were not as big as the cameras would have us believe - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm

I know

The moment became symbolic across the world as it signalled the fall of the dictator. Wearing a black vest, Mr al-Jubouri, an Iraqi weightlifting champion, pounded through the concrete in an attempt to smash the statue and all it meant to him. Now, on the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, he says: "I really regret bringing down the statue. The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/video/page/0,,2037829,00.html

As for the accents - well i'd imagine if your story has credance - that would be unsuprising. It was in a relatively ''safe zone'' - i'm sure they gathered together people from all over to see and participate. I can see that it was very well stage managed - not a spontanious act. That does not mean those who took part did not mean what they were doing - i'm sure you'd accept the thoughts of the person who is now dissilusioned ?.

I agree there is - it is a corruption of islam and those apposed to that corruption of islam - You can't say that this ''war'' is against every muslim in the middle east - as that is just rubbish. Well i suppose you do say that - because you elude to the idea any person who is ''with us'' must be some some of traitor and well we will be getting rid of them when we ''win''. I do not know what news you watch or read - it aint the same as mine.

Why pigeon hole everybody anyway - is it easier for you ? - There are varied groups of people not just two sides ''us and them'' - OBL and his motley crew and differing groups with varying ideologies - murdering each other. There is also OFCOURSE the innocent Iraqi people [caught in the middle] who are moderate muslims just wishing for the violence to stop [AND US TO GO HOME] - They are the people ''we'' are attempting to help. We are not fighting the millions of innocent Iraqi people wishing to get on with their lives - just the minority who kill Iraqis and '''our side'' with out hesitation.

That is just rubbish - if you had noticed the coalition have built and rebuilt mosques - if they wanted the Iraqi people to stop worshiping their religeon and start worshiping ''ours'' then well that would seem a bit of a waste of time - do you not agree ?. I think you have OBL and his cronies ideology mixed up with ''ours''.

Three remarkable aspects of Osama bin Laden's latest videotape suggested that its strident tone masked an ideological crisis for Al-Qaeda. First, in his speech, broadcast on the Arab satellite network Al-Jazeera on April 24, bin Laden betrayed a need to justify his organization's terrorist mission not just to extremists, but to broader Muslim publics. In the tape, the Al-Qaeda leader spoke extensively of what he labeled the "Western and Zionist Crusade" against the Muslim community of believers, or umma. He displayed a distorted reading of events as different as the crisis in Darfur, the situation in Iraq and the Danish cartoon controversy, and attributed these events to a Western hatred of Islam. He called on Muslims to accept this as the "structuring reality" of their contemporary world. Only continuous jihad, he said, could help the umma defeat the "Crusaders."

Bin Laden's panorama of recent events and his prescription of jihad were not addressed to members or supporters of militant Islamist groups, but rather to the wider Arab and Muslim publics, in a desperate attempt to remind them of Al-Qaeda's "just" cause. It is not lost on bin Laden that a clear majority of Arabs has grown less sympathetic to his group's terrorist agenda in the last few years.

The second remarkable aspect of bin Laden's videotape was his addressing, albeit by assailing them, Arab liberals. In previous videotapes, he accused pro-Western Arab governments and official religious institutions of seducing their populations away from the path of jihad. But this time he blamed Arab liberal intellectuals and writers for betraying the true spirit of Islam. For bin Laden, the liberals disseminate "blasphemous ideas" of democracy, human rights, and moderation, and in so doing diminish the degree of popular support for Al-Qaeda's jihad. The Al-Qaeda leader's decision to open a front against Arab liberals may threaten them, but it is also a testimony to their moral and political influence in the Arab world of today.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=18313&prog=zgp&proj=zdrl,zme

I appreciate your grasp of history - but it is unfounded imho and lacks any real comparison - In this context - your arguement is not based on a reality it is based on your assumptions imho.

Have you been to Iraq ? How come you have the opinion you have - what influenced it - where do you get your prejudice from ?. Who what should i be reading listening to ?.

Who is to say if MY opinion would be altered if i went over there. The point is where ever you are from and if you have or have not ''been there'' you are going to be prejudiced. There are vast swathes of Iraqis who i do not agree with - and i suspect you cast aside those [Iraqis] that disagree with you as ''US lovin apologists'' or something along those lines ?.

If you speak of ME - then you are wrong - i just do not buy into your analysis - given a poll i doubt many other people would either.

I can appreciate that you have knowledge of history but your comparison is just way off the mark imho. If i accepted your logic it all does make perfect sense - i just do not buy into it.

 

Imho christians jews and muslims get on - not all obviously. The majority do not resort to violence. It is just the ''radicals'' as you put it. Their version of Islam is not the same as the vast majority of muslims - they even fight amongst them selves [shia / sunni]. Imho they became the enemy when they waded into Iraq and started killing our soldiers and any Iraqi person who did not agree with their ''radical'' version of Islam.

Those religeons are close to each other - but when you have humans involved it all becomes political.

 

Who determines what is radical or terrorist? I've never seen a definition of terrorism. I've ask for one since 09/11. All I see are new labels being bandied about and new countries being added to the "axis of evil". Hatred and fear tend to cultivate more of the same.